Even order distortion elimination in push-pull or differential amplifiers and circuits

ABSTRACT

A method for improving or eliminating second harmonic and higher even order distortion terms and balance of fundamental signals in push-pull amplifiers and other differential circuits is disclosed. A common-mode (CM) signal is generated as a sum of two complementary (out of phase) signals in a summation network. The CM signal contains even order distortion terms only, while the fundamental signal and odd order distortion terms are canceled, thus providing a correction signal that can be used to reduce even order distortion terms, by injecting the correction signal, with proper phase and amplitude, into suitable circuit nodes. For feedback, the correction signal is injected at the input of the amplifiers, for feed-forward, it&#39;s injected at the output. The correction signal can be amplified to higher levels and injected into the circuit, without affecting gain of fundamental signals; and can result in significant even order distortion improvements, and improved balance of complementary fundamental signals.

This application claims the benefit of Provisional Application No.60/391,671, filed Jun. 27, 2002.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

This invention relates to elimination or improvements of second orderand higher (even) order distortion products in differential andpush-pull amplifiers and circuits, and more specifically to exemplarypush-pull amplifiers used in multichannel systems such as cable TV(CATV) head-ends, distribution amplifiers in CATV plants or insubscribers homes, necessary for transmission of analog TV signals,digital QAM signals used in digital TV and high speed modems forInternet communications, and more particularly to use of this method inimproved agile frequency conversion apparatus (up-converter), to ensure:that distortion specification for the multichannel system is met, butalso in high speed digital, GHz range differential clock drivesrequiring very good balance and duty cycle, and other applicationsrequiring good signal balance and low distortions.

2. Background of the Related Art

In cable television multichannel systems, the frequency band allocatedfor the service spans over several octaves, from about 50 MHz through870 MHz and above. In this and other multi-octave systems manydistortion products, such as second harmonic, third harmonic and in somecases higher order harmonics, if any, fall in-band, i.e. fall on othersimultaneously transmitted channels in the band, where such harmonicdistortion products can cause signal quality degradation and overallsystem performance degradation. Particularly troublesome is the secondharmonic product, which is often the strongest and most notorious term.Attenuating these distortion components to reach acceptable levels ofsystem performance poses one of the more significant and challengingproblems faced by designers of such broadband multichannel systems.

By far the most widely used solution in the prior art addressing secondharmonic distortion problem is the infamous push-pull amplifier,illustrated in FIG. 1A. The push-pull topology and it's merits are wellknown and documented in the industry. The main value of a push-pullstructure is in it's inherent ability to cancel the second order andother even order distortion terms.

The basic principle of the second harmonic cancellation can beunderstood by inspecting FIG. 1A. A spectrally clean, harmonic-freeinput signal of frequency fs, as illustrated in spectrum plot 4, issplit by transformer 6 in two arms: the in-phase arm 8 and out-of phasearm 10. The complementary phase relationship of the two signals isdepicted by the sense of the arrows in spectrum plots 12 and 14. Thesesignals are amplified in inventing amplifiers 16 and 18. Each amplifieris an inverter having a gain (−A) and non-linear second orderdistortion, designated as D. The non-linearity of each amplifiergenerates second harmonic distortion (at frequency 2fs), which appearsat each of the outputs (24 and 26), along with the fundamental frequencyfs, as shown in spectrum plots 28 and 30, where the relative level offundamental signals fs is designated as 0 dB and the level of secondharmonics as Dn. While fundamental signals fs at the output of theamplifiers remain out-of-phase with one another, the second harmonicsare in phase with each other. This is because the second harmonic isgenerated by the quadratic non-linearity of the amplifier, and thereforeis proportional to the square of the fundamental signals as expressed ineq. (1) below. By operation of squaring, the sign difference between thetwo arms disappears, and it results in both arms having the same(positive) sign of the second order term.

The output transformer 32 performs the operation of subtraction of thetwo output signals 24 and 26. The subtraction results in summation offundamental signals (as well as odd order distortion terms), since theyare out of phase with one another, and canceling of the secondharmonics, since they are in phase with each other. The cancellationwill occur in the same way with all other even order harmonics, (fourth,sixth, etc.). However, the higher order terms are progressively muchlower than the second harmonic and are usually negligible. The summationof fundamental signals results in 6 dB level (voltage) increase, and thedistortion level is reduced to a residual level of εDn, as depicted inthe output spectrum plot 34.

It is well known in the art that the improvement in the distortion withpush-pull structure directly depends on the circuit balance, such as thebalance of amplifiers gain and impedance match, symmetry and matching ofthe baluns (BALanced to UNbalanced transformers), etc. Any imbalance, inthe circuit will reduce the amount of achievable cancellation of secondand higher order distortion terms. With reference to FIG. 1A, the signalat the output 36 of the push-pull amplifier can be represented with thefollowing equation: $\begin{matrix}{{Vout} = {G_{n} \cdot \left\lbrack {{Vin} + {ɛ \cdot {D_{n}\left( \frac{Vin}{2} \right)}^{2}}} \right\rbrack}} & (1)\end{matrix}$

-   -   where:        -   Vout=output signal voltage        -   Vin=input signal voltage        -   Gn=gain of each arm.        -   Dn=second order distortion in each arm (ratio of distortion            voltage and signal voltage)        -   ε=total imbalance in the push-pull circuit

From eq. (1) it can be found that the second harmonic improvement due topush-pull topology over single ended amplifier is: equal to 20 log (ε).For a theoretical case of ε=0 (perfect balance), the distortion termwould be completely canceled. In practice, in a well designed CATVpush-pull circuit, using state of the art RF integrated circuits (RFIC)with dual monolithic matched amplifiers and well built baluns, theachievable improvement of the second harmonic distortion is limited bycircuit imbalances to no better than 20 to 25 dB (ε in the order of 0.1)over that of a single-ended amplifier.

For additional distortion improvements, the most extensively used methodin the prior art is the negative feedback applied to each of the twopush-pull amplifiers. It is well known in the art that negative feedbackimproves linearity and reduces distortion, not only of second orderterms, but also of all other even and odd order distortion terms.However, the down side of the negative feedback is that it causesreduction of the amplifier gain, as shown in eq. (4) below. Inconsequence, to maintain the same RF output power, this loss of gainmust be compensated by increase of the input drive level to thepush-pull stage. This places additional burden on the previous (driver)stage, requiring both higher gain and higher output level signalhandling capability of that stage. The acceptable reduction in gain isoften the limit of how strong a negative feedback can be applied. Thetrade-off between distortion improvements and loss of gain with negativefeedback can be found with the help of equations (2) through (7):

The gain of a single-ended amplifier without a feedback can be expressedwith equation (2) and the distortion of the same amplifier with eq. (3):$\begin{matrix}{{{Signal}\mspace{14mu}{Gain}\mspace{14mu}\left( {{without}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {\frac{Vos}{Vis} = {- A}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{{Output}\mspace{14mu}{Distortion}\mspace{14mu}\left( {{without}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {D = \frac{Vd}{Vos}}} & (3)\end{matrix}$

-   -   where:        -   Vis=input signal voltage        -   Vos=output signal voltage        -   Vd=distortion signal voltage at amplifier output

Adding negative feedback to the amplifier, the gain and distortion ofthe feedback amplifier can be derived with the help of FIG. 1B and FIG.1C, respectively: $\begin{matrix}{{{Signal}\mspace{14mu}{Gain}\mspace{14mu}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{negative}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {G_{n} = {\frac{Vos}{Vis} = \frac{- A}{1 + {\beta_{n}A}}}}} & (4)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{{Output}\mspace{14mu}{Distortion}\mspace{20mu}{Level}\mspace{11mu}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{negative}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {{Vod} = \frac{Vd}{1 + {\beta_{n}A}}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$

-   -   where Vod is output distortion voltage, βn is the negative        feedback ratio coefficient and (−A) is the amplifier gain.

The non-linear distortion in most amplifiers occurs at the amplifier'soutput, because that's where the signal levels are the highest and aload is driven. This assumption is used in the model for distortion inFIG. 1C, where the distortion voltage Vd is shown as if being injectedat the output of the amplifier. Eq. (5) was derived based on this model.

In the above equations, both quantities βn and A can be complex numbers.The phase margin of the open loop gain (βnA) must be sufficient in orderto maintain stability and prevent positive feedback and potentialparasitic oscillations. Ideal phase of the open loop gain βnA is 0°. Therule of thumb for the phase margin in general is that it should notexceed 60° in order to maintain circuit stability.

Dividing eq. (5) by Vos and substituting eq. (3) in (5), distortionimprovement due to negative feedback can be computed: $\begin{matrix}{{{Output}\mspace{14mu}{Distortion}\mspace{14mu}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{negative}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {D_{n} = {\frac{Vod}{Vos} = \frac{D}{\left( {1 + {\beta_{n}A}} \right)}}}} & (6)\end{matrix}$

From eq. (4) it can be seen that the gain reduction due to negativefeedback is equal to the magnitude |1+βnA| of the denominator, and fromeq. (6) it follows that the distortion is improved exactly by the samefactor.

Substituting eq. (4) and (6) in eq. (1), the equation for the outputsignal of the push-pull amplifier of FIG. 1A, a consolidated equationexpressing the effects of the negative feedback can be obtained:$\begin{matrix}{{{Vout}\mspace{14mu}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{negative}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {\frac{A}{\left( {1 + {\beta_{n}A}} \right)}\left\lbrack {{Vin} + {ɛ\frac{D}{\left( {1 + {\beta_{n}A}} \right)}\left( \frac{Vin}{2} \right)^{2}}} \right\rbrack}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

With eq. (7), the same conclusion reached previously can be confirmed,and that is that with negative feedback the distortion is improved atthe expense of gain, and consequently the improvement is limited by theavailable excess gain of the amplifier, as well as by the available gainand signal handling capabilities of the previous stages driving thepush-pull amplifier, necessary to compensate for the loss of gain.

Distortion improvement achievable in practical RF amplifiers withnegative feedback is typically 3 to 6 dB. As an example, if theamplifier gain is A=14 dB, feedback ratio βn=−20 dB, the open loop gainβnA will be equal to −6 dB. Assuming 0° phase shift in the feedbacknetwork, the magnitude |1+βnA| will be equal to 1.5 (or 3.5 dB). In thisexample, the improvement of the distortion is 3.5 dB, but at the expenseof reduction of gain by the same amount of 3.5 dB (gain will drop from14 dB to 10.5 dB). Increasing feedback coefficient βn much beyond thevalue in this example would quickly become prohibitive due to excessiveloss of gain.

For performance improvements beyond those achievable with negativefeedback in push-pull amplifiers, prior art resorts to one or more ofthe following methods:

Increasing linearity of amplifiers by using higher power amplifiershaving higher bias (current and/or voltage) or paralleling multipleamplifiers (such as in power-doublers, where two amplifiers are wired-orto achieve better linearity). The penalty with this approach is in theincreased power consumption, size and cost.

Another method to increase linearity often employed in prior art is byusing linearization techniques, based either on predistortion orfeed-forward methods. The predistortion method utilizes a non-linearmodule inserted at the input of the amplifier. This module is designedto generate distortion products precisely in anti-phase with thedistortion products of the amplifier, thus canceling or reducing thedistortion at the output. Another common approach, the feed-forwardmethod, relies on extracting the distortion terms by subtracting thescaled version of the output with the input signal, inverting thesedistortion terms and injecting them, at the correct level and phase, atthe output and thus canceling or reducing the distortion at the output.Both of these methods suffer of increased complexity and difficulties inmaintaining the proper phase and amplitude matching conditions due tounit to unit component variation and over wide frequency range, as wellas over varying operating conditions (temperature, power supply). Inmany applications, increased complexity, size and cost of thesesolutions are prohibitive.

Another way in prior art of improving or removing harmonic products isby way of filtering. Unfortunately this approach can't be used in manyCATV devices, namely in those that must have simultaneous bandwidthcovering the whole operating frequency range (e.g. distributionamplifiers passing all channels simultaneously). While filtering couldbe used in frequency agile applications which process one channel at thetime and therefore do not need wide simultaneous bandwidth (such asup-converters, channel processors, etc.), it would nonethelesscomplicate the design and increase the size and cost of these devices.

In today's CATV systems, it is expected that each channel should have noless than 65 dB attenuation of distortion (and any other undesired)components. This is often difficult to achieve with the prior artsolutions, particularly in applications where power consumption,physical size and cost are important, or critical considerations.

Examples of prior art systems embodying one of more of the abovefeatures are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,699,465 to Pranke; U.S. Pat.No. 5,568,089 to Maru; U.S. Pat. No. 6,211,734 to Ahn; U.S. Pat. No.5,281,924 to Maloberti et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 3,895,306 to Rebeles; U.S.Pat. No. 4,933,644 to Fattaruso et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,381,112 toRybicki et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,475,323 to Harris et al. Thecontents of each of these U.S. patents is incorporated herein byreference in its entirety.

Thus, there is room in the art for improved push-pull amplifiers,suitable for use in agile up-converters and other CATV signal processingcomponents in broadband multicarrier systems and in other applications,ones that sufficiently suppress undesirable distortion components in thecomposite signal in order to meet and preferably exceed the distortionspecification for the system, but inexpensive and easy to design andimplement, and suitable for integration in radio frequency integratedcircuits (RFICs), without the need for large numbers of costly switchedfilters and/or power hungry amplifiers.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is one objective of the method and apparatus of the present inventionto provide significant improvements over prior art in second harmonicand higher even order harmonic distortion products in push-pullamplifiers and other differential circuits, without adversely affectingthe gain, in a way simple and easy to design and implement.

It is further an objective of the present invention to reduce the cost,size, complexity and power consumption of RF push-pull amplifiersrequired to produce the requisite RF output power with acceptabledistortion levels, in broadband, multi-octave systems, having eithersingle or multiple simultaneously present carriers.

It is yet another objective of the present invention to reduce the cost,size and power consumption of RF push-pull amplifiers with improveddistortion performance in broadband multi-octave systems in a specialcase of processing single channel at a time.

It is further an objective of the present invention to providesignificant improvement over prior art in the balance of the fundamentalsignals (and odd order distortion terms) in push-pull amplifiers andother differential structures.

It is another objective to embody the present invention in a formsuitable for integration on a single chip RF integrated circuit (RFIC),with minimum required support circuitry.

The method of the present invention is particularly suited for use inbroadband, push-pull devices used in cable TV's distribution amplifiersand channel up-converters, but also in high speed digital, GHz rangedifferential, clock drives requiring very good balance and duty cycle,and in other applications, employs a common-mode feedback or acommon-mode feed-forward technique, which selectively extracts, actsupon and reduces distortion terms only, without affecting fundamentalsignals.

In accordance with the present invention, the foregoing and otherobjectives are achieved by the means of a feedback, herein referred toas common-mode feedback, and/or feed-forward) herein referred to ascommon-mode feed-forward, which will be clear to those of skill in theart in view of the detailed description of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A more complete understanding of the method and apparatus of the presentinvention may be had by reference to the following detailed descriptionwhen taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein:

FIG. 1A is a conceptual representation of a prior art push-pullamplifier with negative feedback in each arm.

FIG. 1B is a block diagram of a single ended inverting amplifier withnegative feedback used in each arm of the prior art circuit of FIG. 1A,used herein to derive a closed loop gain expression.

FIG. 1C is a block diagram of a single-ended inverting amplifier withnegative feedback used in each arm of the prior art circuit of FIG. 1A,used herein to derive a closed loop expression for distortionimprovement due to negative feedback.

FIG. 2A is a conceptual representation of a push-pull amplifierutilizing, common-mode feedback for even order distortion improvementsof the present invention.

FIG. 2B is a simplified block diagram of a push-pull amplifier withcommon-mode feedback of the present invention of FIG. 2A, used herein toderive a closed loop gain expression.

FIG. 2C is a simplified block diagram of a push-pull amplifier withcommon-mode feedback of the present invention of FIG. 2A, used herein toderive a closed loop expression for distortion improvements due tocommon-mode feedback.

FIG. 2D is a simplified block diagram of a push-pull amplifier withcommon-mode feedback of the present invention of FIG. 2A, used herein toderive a closed loop expression for imbalance improvements due tocommon-mode feedback.

FIG. 3 is a simplified block diagram of one preferred embodiment of apush-pull amplifier of the present invention, utilizing a simple passivecircuit implementation for common-mode feedback.

FIG. 4 is a simplified block diagram of another preferred embodiment ofa push-pull amplifier utilizing active circuit implementation of acommon-mode feedback of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is a conceptual block diagram of one representation of apush-pull amplifier utilizing common-mode feed-forward techniques withcorrection signals injected at the output of amplifiers, for secondorder distortion improvement of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a conceptual block diagram of another representation of apush-pull amplifier utilizing, common-mode feed-forward technique, withphase and amplitude adjustments and injection of correction signals atthe output of the balun, for second order distortion improvement of thepresent invention.

FIG. 7 is a block diagram of one preferred embodiment of a push-pullamplifier utilizing common-mode feed-forward technique, with correctionsignals directly injected at the output of amplifiers, for second orderdistortion improvement of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is an example of the embodiment of an electronically controlledcircuit for unbalancing of common-mode feedback or feed-forward couplingimpedances, with the purpose of providing compensation for the effectsof circuit imbalances.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The main difference between the present invention and the prior art isin the feedback topology, and consequently, in the spectral content ofthe feedback signal. While the negative feedback of the prior art (FIG.1A) contains strong fundamental signal in the feedback path, thecommon-mode feedback of the present invention (FIG. 2A) contains nofundamental signal energy. The present invention accomplishes distortionimprovements, and other goals, such as improvements in the signalbalance, by employing a feedback herein referred to as common-mode (CM)feedback. The CM feedback is essentially a selective negative feedback,acting upon even order distortion terms only. It does not affect thedesired fundamental signals (nor it affects odd order distortion terms),thus accomplishing improvements of even order distortions without anyloss of signal gain.

The CM feedback signal is easily generated by simple summation ofsignals in the two push-pull arms (hence the term “common-mode”, sinceit is obtained by addition of otherwise differential signals). It willbe shown that the common-mode feedback of the present invention can beorders of magnitude stronger than the traditional negative feedback,thus significantly reducing second and higher even order distortionproducts, while not causing any reduction of signal gain.

While the CM feedback is a preferred approach in the present invention,an alternative solution using common-mode feed-forward technique is alsoherein disclosed.

The method and apparatus of the present invention is now described. FIG.2A is a conceptual re presentation of a push-pull amplifier utilizingcommon-mode feedback of the present invention. The principle ofoperation is based on the fact that the two complementary fundamentalsignals' at amplifiers outputs 52 and 54 are out of phase with oneanother and second harmonic and higher even order terms signals are inphase with each other at the outputs of the two amplifiers. Even orderterms are in phase with each other, because they are generated by theeven order non-linearity of the amplifier, and therefore they areproportional to the fundamental signal raised to the even orderexponent. Raising to the even order power the negative sign disappears,and the result is the same (positive) sign, i.e. the same phase, in thetwo arms. Thus, summing the two signals will produce the sum of evenharmonic terms and will cancel the fundamental (and all odd orderdistortion terms) in the summation junction 60, thus providing acorrection signal that can be advantageously used for reduction ofdistortion terms, by injecting this signal, with proper level and phase,into suitable nodes.

For feedback, the correction signal is injected at the input of theamplifiers, and for feed-forward, it is injected at the output.

The feedback signal in FIG. 2A is obtained by summation of the twoamplifier output signals 52 and 54 in circuit block 50. The summation isaccomplished via coupling impedances 62 and 64, providing the sum signalat the common node 60. This signal, after phase and amplitudeconditioning in block 50, is passed back to amplifier inputs viafeedback lines 56 and 58. The reinsertion of the CM feedback signal intoamplifier inputs is accomplished via impedances 66 and 68. Due tocircuit symmetry, the output coupling impedance 62 is nominally equal to64 (Z1). Similarly the input coupling impedance 66 is nominally equal to68 (Z2). However, in some cases making these impedances, unequal may beadvantageous, as discussed later in more details.

It is important to emphasize that the CM feedback is a form of negativefeedback, requiring a total of 180° phase shift around the loop. Sincethe main amplifiers 16 and 18 are inverters (already inducing 180° phaseshift), the phase shift required by the rest of the loop (i.e. by thefeedback network) must be 0°.

The level and phase of the CM feedback signal directly depends on theargument and magnitude of complex impedances Z1 and Z2, and clearly thedesign choices of these parameters can be used to control the loopbehavior to large extent. It should be noted that Z1 and Z2 willnecessarily cause additional impedance loading at output and inputamplifier's terminals, thus affecting the input and output return lossof the push-pull circuit. This effect must also be considered in thedesign.

To increase the level of the feedback correction signal, amplifier 70can be used, i.e. an active feedback with gain can be employed. Abilityto use active feedback and so obtain significant increase of the loopgain presents one of the key advantages of the present invention. Thisamplifier can be of a low power, low dynamic range type (thus notburdening the power dissipation/consumption budget) because the signallevels it processes are small, residual distortion terms. This amplifiershould be of a non-inverting type (nominal 0° phase shift) in order tomaintain necessary conditions for negative feedback and stability in theloop.

In summary, the design choices of impedances Z1 and Z2, as well as thechoice of main amplifiers 16 and 18 and feedback amplifier 70 must bemade based on the loop performance consideration, circuit stability, aswell as impedance matching conditions presented at the input and outputports.

It should also be mentioned that with push-pull and other differentialcircuits, there is an opportunity to take advantage of systematiccircuit imbalances, if any, and the design practice should include suchconsiderations. As an example; balun transformers employed in push-pullapplications usually have some systematic imbalances, often caused byinherent asymmetry in their construction. In this case, it is beneficialto connect the terminals of the input and output baluns in a specificway, one that would provide cancellation effects for such asymmetry. Anexample is shown in FIG. 2A, where a “diagonal symmetry ” of theinput/output connections is utilized, i.e. the input signal is appliedto a terminal designated with a dot in balun 6, and the output isextracted from the equivalent terminal with a dot in output balun 32.This is a preferred orientation of baluns, because the sense of theerrors caused by the imbalance will be opposite in the two baluns,providing first order cancellation of the imbalance effects.

As those skilled in the art can appreciate, the use of a common modefeedback signal formed at a common node between two impedances eachconnected respectively to the output of each active device, wherein thevalue of such impedances can be selected at will, provides a degree ofadjustment freedom independent of the construction of the windings ofthe output balun and thus provides a particular advantage over prior artcircuits in which a common mode feedback node is formed by a center tapin the primary winding of an otherwise more complicated output balun.

For better insight into relationships of various factors affectingcircuit operation, some analytical treatment of the more importantparameters of the present invention is provided 5 below.

Equation for signal gain of the push-pull amplifier with common-modefeedback can be derived by inspection of FIG. 2B. Two complementaryoutput signals 80 and 82, having equal magnitudes and opposite signs,are summed, yielding zero value of signal 84. Consequently, feedbacksignals 86 and 88 also have zero value, having no contribution at theinputs of the two amplifiers. Therefore, the gain in each arm remainsunaffected by the common-mode feedback and remains equal to the openloop gain of the amplifiers: $\begin{matrix}{{{Signal}\mspace{14mu}{Gain}\mspace{14mu}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{CM}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {G_{c} = {\frac{V_{01}}{V_{i1}} = {\frac{V_{02}}{V_{i2}} = {- A}}}}} & (8)\end{matrix}$

It is evident from eq. (8) that there is no loss of gain due tocommon-mode feedback. This feature represents another key advantage ofthe present invention. The reason the gain is not lost is essentiallydue to a fact that desired fundamental signal is non-existent in thefeedback loop, because it is canceled in the common mode summationjunction, by virtue of out-of-phase signal conditions. The cancellationof the complementary fundamental signals in the feedback loopeffectively cuts off the feedback, since there is no signal tocommunicate back through the loop. This is entirely true only if thebalance is perfect. In reality, there will be some circuit imbalances,causing a small amount of fundamental signal to appear in the loop.However, as shown below, the imbalance effects are negligible and gainremains substantially unaffected by the common-mode feedback.

With reference to FIG. 2D, accounting for input signals imbalance andamplifiers gain imbalance, the output signals are computed per equationsbelow: $\begin{matrix}{{V_{01} = {{{A_{1}V_{1}} - \frac{\beta_{c}A_{1}\Delta_{0}}{1 + {\beta_{c}\left( {A_{1} + A_{2}} \right)}}} \approx {{A_{1}V_{1}} - \frac{\Delta_{0}}{2}}}},{{{for}\mspace{14mu}{\beta_{c}\left( {A_{1} + A_{2}} \right)}}\operatorname{>>}1}} & \left( {8a} \right)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{V_{02} = {{{{- A_{2}}V_{2}} - \frac{\beta_{c}A_{2}\Delta_{0}}{1 + {\beta_{c}\left( {A_{1} + A_{2}} \right)}}} \approx {{{- A_{2}}V_{2}} - \frac{\Delta_{0}}{2}}}},{{{for}\mspace{14mu}{\beta_{c}\left( {A_{1} + A_{2}} \right)}}\operatorname{>>}1}} & \left( {8b} \right)\end{matrix}$

-   -   where: V1 and V2 are input signals, A1 and A2 gain of respective        amplifiers

The term Δ₀ in the above equations represents the imbalance of theamplifier outputs without any feedback, and is defined as the sum of theoutput voltages relative to ground potential, per the followingequation:Δ₀ =A ₁ V ₁ −A ₂ V ₂  (8c)

Note: Δ₀ is similar to previously defined imbalance quantity ε inequation (1), except that ε represents the total imbalance of the entirepush-pull circuit (including output balun and other factors), while Δ₀represents the imbalance of the input signals and amplifiers gain only.Perfect balance would result in zero sum for Δ₀; any non zero result isa measure of difference, or imbalance, of the two voltages in respect toground.

Examining equations (8a) and (8b), for small imbalance Δ₀ (which isnecessarily the case in practice, otherwise the benefit of the push-pulltopology would be defied), it can be found that only small gainperturbations are caused by this term for any value of βc for which thecircuit is stable. For a likely practical case of large open loop gain[βc(A₁+A₂)>>1], when the feedback coefficient βc disappears from theequation, the common-mode feedback effect on gain is completelynegligible.

The distortion of the push-pull amplifier with common-mode feedback canbe computed using FIG. 2C. Here, even order distortion signals 90 and 92are in-phase with each other. Assuming identical amplifiers, distortionmagnitudes will be the same (designated as distortion voltage Vd). Aftersome manipulation, the following equation can be derived:$\begin{matrix}{{{Output}\mspace{14mu}{Distortion}\mspace{20mu}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{CM}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {D_{c} = {\frac{Vod}{Vos} = {{\frac{Vd}{Vos}\frac{1}{1 + {2\beta_{c}A}}} = \frac{D}{1 + {2\beta_{c}A}}}}}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

-   -   where βc is the common-mode feedback ratio coefficient and (−A)        is the amplifier gain.

From eq. (9) it follows that the distortion improvement with thecommon-mode feedback is equal to the magnitude of the denominator, i.e.|1+2β_(c)A. Clearly, increasing the magnitude of the denominator, betterdistortion improvements can be achieved.

It should be emphasized that only distortions generated inside the(push-pull) circuit are the subject of improvements—the distortions thatmay be coming along with the signal from the source are not. This isclearly the case because the incoming distortions are indistinguishablefrom the signal, since, much like the signal itself, they will becomplementary to each other and will not contribute to the content ofthe collection signal in the feedback.

However, the above is not true for the improvements of signal balance—itwill be shown later that regarding signal balance improvements, the CMfeedback not only improves the imbalance caused by the circuit(push-pull) itself, but that it also improves the imbalance of theincoming signal (if any) from the source! Also, it will be shown thatthere is an indirect distortion improvement due to the benefits ofimproved signal balance. Returning back to FIG. 2A, the output of thepush-pull amplifier with common-mode feedback can be expressed:$\begin{matrix}{{Vout} = {G_{c} \cdot \left\lbrack {{Vin} + {ɛ_{c} \cdot {D_{c}\left( \frac{Vin}{2} \right)}^{2}}} \right\rbrack}} & (10)\end{matrix}$

-   -   where:        -   Vout=output signal voltage        -   Vin=input signal voltage        -   Gc=gain of each arm with common-mode feedback, per eq. (8)        -   Dc=second order distortion in each arm with common-mode            feedback, per eq. (9)        -   ε_(c)=total imbalance (with common-mode feedback) between            the two arms

Substituting eq. (8) and (9) in eq. (10), the effects of the common-modefeedback can be expressed in a consolidated equation for the outputsignal of the push-pull: $\begin{matrix}{{{Vout}{\mspace{14mu}\;}\left( {{with}\mspace{14mu}{CM}\mspace{14mu}{FB}} \right)} = {{- A} \cdot \left\lbrack {{Vin} + {ɛ_{c}\frac{D}{\left( {1 + {2\beta_{c}A}} \right)}\left( \frac{Vin}{2} \right)^{2}}} \right\rbrack}} & (11)\end{matrix}$

The expression for distortion with common-mode feedback per eq. (11) issimilar to that for the negative feedback of eq. (7). However, the maindifference is in the extent of attainable magnitude of the denominatorsin each of the two equations. The magnitude of denominator |1+2β_(c)A|in eq. (11) can be designed to achieve much greater values than themagnitude of denominator |1+β_(n)A| in eq. (7). Greater value withcommon mode feedback is possible because circuit and implementationconstraints do not limit the maximum value of βc, not nearly as much asthey limit the maximum value of βn in the case of negative feedback. Themain reason for this is that there is no loss of gain with CM feedback,and therefore the gain places no limit on the magnitude of βc, unlike inthe case of βn. In fact, βc can be greater than 0 dB (i.e. it can havean active amplifier with gain in a feedback path, as depicted in FIG.4), which is not possible with negative feedback. The only limitation ofthe value of βc is due to possible instabilities or oscillations in theloop, as previously mentioned, which can occur if the phase margin ofthe open loop gain βcA is not sufficient.

It is in the fact that the magnitude of βc can be much greater than themagnitude of βn where the principal advantage of the present inventionover prior art is. The effect of the difference in magnitudes of thesecoefficients on the distortion improvements, as well as the resultingsignificant advantage of the common-mode feedback over prior art isdemonstrated in Table 1 below.

Theoretical improvement of second order distortion achievable withcommon-mode feedback is compared with that of negative feedback in Table1 for an example of a push-pull amplifier using amplifiers having a gainof A=15 dB and assuming ideal case of 0° phase shift of the open loopgain in both negative and common-mode feedback case:

TABLE 1 Comparison of Common-Mode Feedback and Negative Feedback in thecase of a 15 dB gain amplifier Theoretical distortion Open Theoreticaldistortion improvement with Loop improvement with Common-Mode Gain:Negative Feedback = Feedback = Feedback βnA |1 + βnA| |1 + 2 βcA| Ratio:or (Note: signal gain is (Note: no reduction βn or βc βcA reduced forthe same amount) of signal gain) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) −25 −10 2.4 4.3 −20−5 3.9 6.5 −15 0 6.0 9.5 −10 5 Not applicable due to 13.2 excessive lossof gain (8.9 dB) −5 10 Not applicable due to 17.3 excessive loss of gain(12.4) 0 15 Not applicable due to 21.8 excessive loss of gain (16.4) 520 Not applicable due to 26.4 excessive loss of gain (20.8) 10 25 Notapplicable due to 31.3 excessive loss of gain (25.5) 15 30 Notapplicable due to 36.2 excessive loss of gain (30.0)

As shown in Table 1, the improvements with common-mode feedback, usingactive gain in the feedback path, can be dramatic. With feedback ratioof +10 dB (using active gain in the loop), distortion improvement ashigh as 30 dB or more may be achievable. Such improvements are notpossible with negative feedback.

In practice, implementation losses will limit the amount of achievableimprovements with common-mode feedback. As previously mentioned,principal limitation is related to circuit stability, which in turndepends on the phase margin of the open loop gain βcA. This seemscontrary to the implications of eq. (8), which states that the signalgain is independent of the loop gain βcA, leading one to conclude thatthe stability should not be affected by the loop gain. However, this isnot true, because eq. (8) applies to the rain from input to output ofthe push-pull structure, whereas the stability is related to asingle-ended loop gain around each of the amplifiers (the single-endedloop gain around each amplifier is a gain of a signal inserted in oneamplifier only, without a complementary signal inserted in the otheramplifier in the push-pull circuit—it is equivalent to each amplifier'snoise gain around the loop, which is the one relevant for circuitstability considerations). It can be shown that the single-ended gain(and therefore the stability) does depend on the loop gain βcA, with asimilar expression to that in equation (9).

To ensure circuit stability, the phase margin of open loop gain. βcAmust meet stability criteria—a minimum of 60° or more, depending on eachspecific circuit case: Failure to meet and maintain the minimum margincan give rise to positive feedback and potentially cause oscillations.This is because with insufficient: phase margin, the term 1+2βcA canapproach zero and the condition for oscillations can occur, causinginstability, degraded distortion performance, and potentially producingparasitic oscillations. It should be noted that for stability purposes,the phase margin needs to be maintained at sufficient levels only atfrequencies where the loop gain is greater than 0 dB. At frequencieswhere the loop gain is lower than 0 dB, the circuit can't oscillate, andtherefore the phase margin is not important. This can be advantageouslyutilized by designing a frequency-discriminating feedback network forbest phase margin and gain in the frequency band of interest, andattenuating the feedback at out of band frequencies to below 0 dB gain,thus ensuring stability at both in-band and out of band frequencies. Inmost amplifiers and other devices, the phase margin will progressivelydegrade at higher frequencies, because the effect of parasiticinductances and capacitances on the phase shift is proportional withfrequency. As an example, in a broadband, multi-octave amplifieroperating from 50 MHz to 1 GHz due to increased phase shift at higherfrequencies, the instability can occur much above 1 GHz, where the loopgain can still be substantially above 0 dB. In this case, a low passfilter can be utilized in the feedback circuit, designed to attenuatethe feedback gain to below 0 dB at frequencies above 1 GHz.Unfortunately, along with desired attenuation, the filter willnecessarily cause undesired phase shift, which may in fact degrade thecircuit stability, unless it's phase and amplitude response is carefullyoptimized for the application circuit. The adverse phase shift effectmay limit the applicability of this method.

Another side benefit brought in by CM feedback, beyond distortionimprovements, is the improvement in the balance of the fundamentalsignals (as well as the balance of the odd-order distortion terms) inthe two arms of the push-pull circuit, as discussed below. This benefitis not available with negative feedback of the prior art.

The balance improvement with CM feedback (in respect to signal ground)can be computed with the help of FIG. 2D by simply summing up thevoltages at the two outputs, earlier derived in equations (8a) and (8b): $\begin{matrix}{{{Output}\mspace{14mu}{Balance}} = {{V_{01} + V_{02}} = {\frac{{A_{1}V_{1}} - {A_{2}V_{2}}}{1 + {\beta_{c}\left( {A_{1} + A_{2}} \right)}} = \frac{\Delta_{0}}{1 + {\beta_{c}\left( {A_{1} + A_{2}} \right)}}}}} & (12)\end{matrix}$

Equation (12) shows that by the CM feedback, the signal imbalanceimproves by the factor equal to the denominator in this equation, i.e.the imbalance of the amplifier outputs without the feedback (A₀) getsreduced thanks to the feedback by the magnitude of the denominator. Forexample, if the imbalance between amplifier outputs is 1 dB without afeedback and the open loop gain βc(A₁+A₂) is 12 dB, then the magnitudeof |1+βc(A₁+A₂)| would be about 14 dB, i.e. a factor of 5, resulting inthe imbalance reduction by the same factor. This translates to areduction of the initial 1 dB imbalance to less than 0.2 dB residualimbalance.

Essentially, with CM feedback the imbalance between the two arms isreduced by the amount equal to the distortion improvement. This improvedbalance will, in turn, provide one significant, collateral benefit, andthat is the additional improvement of even order distortion, beyond theone described so far. The reason is that improved balance of fundamentalfrequency signals results in improved balance of the distortion termsgenerated at the amplifiers outputs (because distortion terms areproportional to the fundamental signal raised to an exponent), which inturn improves the depth of cancellation provided by the output balun.

The CM feedback not only improves the imbalance caused by the(push-pull) circuit itself, but it also improves the imbalance of theincoming signal (if any) from the source. This can be verified byinspecting a nominator of eq. (12)—it contains the combination of bothinput signal levels and gain terms of the two amplifiers. Thus, not onlythe imbalance of the gain A1 and A2, but also any imbalance that mayexist in the incoming source signals V1 and V2 will be improved by thecommon-mode feedback.

The balance-improving feature of CM feedback can be advantageously usedin many applications, where the balance of differential signals inrespect to ground is important. An application example can includeimprovements in the balance of differential high-speed (GHz range)clocks, Where signal balance may be important for timing recovery. Theeven order distortion improvements can also be beneficial in thisapplication, since it would improve the duty cycle of the clock signals,thus further improving clock symmetry and precision of timing recovery.Another example may be in differential line drivers and similarapplications.

Returning back to common-mode feedback design considerations, a fewadditional aspects are discussed next.

The impedance matching conditions at the input and output terminals mayhave some impact on the common-mode feedback. The effect caused byimpedance mismatch at input or output terminals will depend on theamount of reflections that may exist at these terminals. This effect islimited to the extent of the magnitude of the reflection coefficient. Itcan be shown that the open loop gain βcA will be multiplied by a factorof (1+ρ), where ρ is a complex number representing reflectioncoefficient at either input or output poi. With good matchingconditions, the reflection coefficient will be in the order of 0.1 (20dB return loss) and this effect will be negligible. In cases where thematching is worse, e.g. with reflection coefficient greater than about0.3 (10 dB return loss), reflections can affect the magnitude of thecommon-mode-feedback, and may need to be accounted for and addressed byoptimizing, the feedback ratio βc. Another aspect important to note inthe case of active common-mode feedback is noise. It is not difficult tosee that high noise level will exist at the output of the activefeedback amplifier, because this noise is the amplified input noise ofthe feedback amplifier. As an example, if the gain is of the feedbackamplifier is 20 dB and noise FIG. 3 dB, and coupling loss 10 dB, theinjected noise level will be 20+3−10=13 dB (above thermal noise-floor of−174 dBm/Hz). This injected noise effectively degrades the noise figureof each amp by the same amount. Fortunately, this noise will cause noharm in the system, because it will be completely canceled at the outputport. The reason is that the noise is injected into each amplifier inputas a common-mode signal, having the same phase in both arms, i.e. zerorelative phase. After amplification, since both amplifiers have the samephase shift (i.e. both have phase inversion), the zero relative phasecondition will be preserved and the noise will be subsequently canceledin the output balun (which performs the operation of subtraction). As aresult, there is no noise figure degradation or noise level increasecaused by the common-mode feedback.

The common-mode feedback and negative feedback can co-existsimultaneously in the same circuit. By adding negative feedback linefrom output to input of each of the amplifiers (not shown in FIG. 2A) inaddition to the common-mode feedback, a combined feedback can beobtained. The gain will now be controlled by the negative feedback andit will be reduced by a factor of (1+βnA)—as in the case with negativefeedback alone—while the distortion will be reduced by a greater(combined) factor, equal to [1+(βn+2βc)A]. The combination of the twofeedbacks can provide additional flexibility and degree of freedom indesign choices.

One preferred embodiment of a push-pull amplifier of the presentinvention utilizing a simple passive circuit implementation of thecommon-mode feedback is illustrated in FIG. 3. The common-mode feedbackis obtained by passive network, consisting of a combination of resistiveand capacitive components R1 and C1 for feedback signal extraction, andthe combination of R2 and C2 components for feedback signal insertion.Resistive components determine the magnitude, while capacitivecomponents help reduce phase delays at higher frequencies. Thisembodiment is suitable for discrete implementation, since the feedbacknetwork is simple and has low component count. To facilitate the designprocess, it is beneficial to open the loop at the common-mode feedbackpoint 100. Breaking the loop at this point will allow for simulation,optimization, and eventual measurements of the open loop gain and phase.Thanks to the low component count and lack of active elements in thefeedback path, the loop performance is more predictable and circuitstability is easier to achieve and maintain. The downside of the passivefeedback is in the lower achievable loop gain magnitudes, and thereforein limited potential for distortion improvements. In practice, due tocircuit loading and losses in the feedback network, the maximumachievable open loop gain βcA is in the order of 0 dB, limiting thedistortion improvements to no more than about 9 dB. However, even withthis limitation, it is still much more effective than the negativefeedback.

In FIG. 4, a simplified block diagram of another preferred embodiment ofa push-pull amplifier utilizing active circuit implementation of acommon mode feedback of the present invention. This embodiment isparticularly suitable for integration. The entire block 110, includingmain amplifiers, feedback amplifier and all passive components can beintegrated in a monolithic RF integrated circuit. With integration ofthe entire CM feedback network, much better open loop phase margin, andtherefore better loop stability can be obtained, which would in turnallow realization of much greater open loop gain magnitude. Theintegration provides this advantage because there is no phase delay ofthe feedback signal caused by exiting/entering the IC package, since theadverse effects of parasitic package impedances, such as bond wireinductance and pin inductance and capacitance on phase delay areavoided. With no phase delay caused by package, it is much easier toachieve desired loop phase over broad frequency range. Another advantageof the integrated solution is in flexibility to use non-inverting mainamplifiers instead of inverting amplifiers, should that be a preferreddesign choice (for instance, if more gain is needed, two cascadedinverting amplifiers can be used), in which case the phase inversionnecessary for proper operation can be provided by the feedbackamplifier.

With active feedback, open loop gain in the order of 25 dB should beeasily achievable, yielding potentially over 30 dB of distortionimprovements. However, with high loop gain the risk of circuitinstability is higher, and extra caution should be exercised as to theeffects of external circuits to the phase margin and overall circuitstability.

A conceptual embodiment of feed-forward method of the present inventionis illustrated in FIG. 5. The common-mode correction signal 60 isobtained in the same way as for the feedback application, by summationof amplifiers outputs 122 and 124 via impedances 62 and 64 (Z1). The CMcorrection signal 60, for the same reasons previously described,contains even distortion signals only. Next, this signal is amplified inamplifier 138, split in two with the help of impedances 130 and 132 (Z2)and then injected by the means of combiners (or directional couplers)134 and 136 into each of the arms at the output of the amplifiers. Theinjected CM correction signals must be out of phase with signals in themain line, and therefore amplifier 138 must be of inverting type. Thisway, a negative feedback loop around this amplifier is effectivelyformed. It can be shown that the gain, balance and distortions of thisloop are governed by equations similar to (8), (8a), (8 b) and (9), andthat the feed-forward technique essentially offers similar overallimprovements as the CM feedback, however, with the followingdisadvantages: more gain (G) in the feed-forward CM path is needed(because the benefit of the main amplifier gain A is not utilized, andalso due to higher attenuation in coupling impedances Z1 and Z2 causedby higher impedance levels of these components, necessary in order toreduce output loading and maintain required output return loss); someloss of the main signals in combiners 134 and 136 due toinsertion/combination loss of these devices will occur, requiring higherlevel at the output of the main amplifiers, thus placing additionalburden on their signal level handling capabilities. On the positiveside, one advantage of the CM feed-forward technique is in that thephase margin and stability are easier to achieve, and that's becauseonly one active element is involved in the loop. Noise injection is nota problem, since like with CM feedback, noise gets canceled in theoutput balun.

One embodiment of feed-forward method of the present invention isillustrated in FIG. 7. The common-mode correction signal is obtained bysummation of amplifiers outputs via R1/C1 components. Afteramplification in 138, injection is accomplished simply via directconnection of R2/C2 to the output lines 170 and 172, by way of forming avoltage divider with amplifier source impedance 174 (Rs) and transformedload impedance 178 (Ro).

Capacitors C1 and C2 are used to provide phase advance for higherfrequencies and help maintain desired phase around the loop.

Another possible embodiment, utilizing common-mode feed-forward conceptis shown in FIG. 6. The common-mode signal is extracted in much the sameway as before, in the summation node 60. However, this time, after phaseand amplitude conditioning of the CM correction signal in 150 and 152,it is injected to the output of the balun, rather than to the outputs ofthe individual amplifiers. For a good cancellation of distortion terms,there must be a good amplitude and phase match between the insertedcorrection signal and original distortion signal at the output of thebalun. The match may be difficult to achieve and maintain over wideoperating conditions (e.g. over multi-octave frequency range,unit-to-unit variations, etc.), particularly because the phase of thesecond harmonic at the output of the balun may not be predictable (e.g.it can have 180° uncertainty, due to unpredictable or inconsistentoutcome of the signal subtraction in the balun),

If, in a particular application, the phase of the distortion at theoutput of the balun is predictable and consistent in the entireoperating frequency range, the phase and amplitude of the common-modecorrection signal could possibly be optimized and can have fixed valuefor the entire range. In this case, the CM feed-forward can be used inapplications requiring simultaneous bandwidth, i.e. where simultaneousprocessing of multiple channels is in question.

If, on the other hand, simultaneous coverage for the entire range is notpossible due to circuit uncertainties, the embodiment of FIG. 6 could beused in special applications having single carrier at the time. Anexample is the agile channel up-converters, where one channel isprocessed at the time, but the unit must be tunable to any frequency inthe operating frequency range. In this case, both phase and amplitude ofthe CM injection signal can be adjusted and controlled by phase controlelement 150 and amplitude control element 152 on a per channel basis.This can be accomplished, for instance, with a micro controller viacontrol lines 158 and 160, where the optimum control values can beobtained by measurements of all channels and stored in a memory, or,more efficiently, computed by some algorithm, based on the combinationof measurements of fewer number of channels and interpolation. For fixedfrequency applications, the phase and amplitude could be manuallyadjusted.

The common-mode feed-forward could be used in combination withcommon-mode feedback, with simultaneous activity of both loops, sharingthe same CM correction signal. The combination may be advantageous insome cases, where greater distortion improvement is required, but at theexpense of higher complexity.

It should be noted that with embodiment of FIG. 6, in the case of acascade of several different stages, not only distortions occurringwithin this circuit itself, but also any even order distortion occurringeither before this stage or after this stage in a cascade can becorrected, by injecting a correction signal matched to the cumulativedistortion term. Other embodiments of the present invention have thesame ability (that is to correct the distortion generated not only intheir own circuit, but also anywhere else in the system), provided thatthe entire cascade is differential, i.e. that there is no transitioningto single-ended drive within the cascade.

As mentioned earlier, choosing unequal (unbalanced) values for outputand/or input coupling impedances (i.e. choosing unequal values ofimpedances 66 and 68 and/or unequal values of impedances 62 and 64 inFIG. 2A or FIG. 5) provides additional design choices for potentialperformance distortion improvements, as well as for signal balanceimprovements. The potential improvements can be achieved bycounteracting imbalances that may exist elsewhere in the circuit, byoffsetting coupling impedances in a way that would compensate (i.e.correct for) the effects of such other circuit imbalances. This way, theimbalances within the circuit itself can be compensated for, butfurthermore, this can be used to the advantage for cancellation ofdistortion terms generated elsewhere in the system (e.g. in a cascade ofmultiple stages, where one or more stages generate distortions).

The potential benefit of unbalanced feedback impedances can be betterunderstood with the help of the following analysis and examples.

The unequal impedances will result in unequal feedback coefficients ineach arm of the push-pull circuits of FIG. 2A or FIG. 5. Usingdistortion equation (9) and inserting different feedback and distortioncoefficients, the distortions at each amplifier output can be expressedwith equations below: $\begin{matrix}{{{Distortion}\mspace{14mu}{at}\mspace{14mu}{one}\mspace{14mu}{Amplifier}\mspace{14mu}{Output}} = \frac{D_{1}}{1 + {2\beta_{c1}A_{1}}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{{{Distortion}\mspace{14mu}{at}\mspace{14mu}{complementary}\mspace{14mu}{Amplifier}\mspace{14mu}{Output}} = \frac{D_{2}}{1 + {2\beta_{c2}A_{2}}}} & (14)\end{matrix}$where index 1 is associated with loop parameters of one arm and index 2with the other, complementary arm of the push-pull amplifier of FIG. 2Aor FIG. 5.

The values of feedback coefficients βc1 and βc2 in the above equationscan be chosen to compensate the difference between distortion D1 and D2,resulting in equal distortion levels at the output of the two amplifiers(by solving eq. (13) and (14) for equal values). Alternatively, thecoefficients βc1 and βc2 can be computed to yield unequal distortionlevels, designed to compensate distortion occurring elsewhere in thesystem.

Once the desired values of βc1 and βc2 are determined, they can berealized by designing corresponding values of the coupling impedances.Alternatively, the desired (unequal) values of these coefficients can beachieved by splitting the common-mode signal amplifier 70 in FIG. 2A (or138 in FIG. 5) into two amplifiers, each driving it's own arm and havinga different gain (i.e. instead of one amplifier with gain G, use twoamplifiers, one with gain G1 and the other with G2). By independentlyadjusting the gain of each amplifier, desired (different) residualdistortion levels could be obtained in each arm. Variable gainamplifiers (suitable for integrated solutions) could also be used, wheregain G1 and G2 are electronically controlled.

The coupling impedances can be designed either as fixed circuitparameters, or as adjustable (manually or electronically controlled)circuit parameters. Electronic control can be very beneficial inapplications processing one frequency at the time, such as channelup-converters in CATV, where optimum imbalance control on a per channelbasis can be realized, thus achieving minimum distortion levels for eachchannel. For electronic control, impedances Z1 and/or Z2 can be realizedwith varicap (varactors) tuning diodes and/or PIN (RF attenuator)diodes. For manual adjustments, variable (trimmer) capacitors and/orvariable resistors (potentiometers) can be used.

An example of the embodiment of an electronically controlled circuit forunbalancing of Z1 or Z2 impedance pairs is illustrated in FIG. 8. Thiscircuit can be used in place of impedance pairs 62/64 (Z1), and/orimpedance pair 66/68 or 130/132 (Z2). The circuit contains PIN diodesfor RF resistance control (180 and 184), and varactor diodes (182 and186), for capacitance control. The components are connected in “back toback” configuration, in order to reduce distortions (if any) that may begenerated by the non-linearity of these components themselves. Thecontrol of the impedance parameters is accomplished by the means ofcomplementary (differential) DC control voltages V_(c1), {overscore(V_(c1))} for PIN diodes control and V_(C2), {overscore (V_(C2))} forvaractor control, with common ground return via coil 188. For balancedimpedance condition, differential control voltages are zero, i.e.complementary voltages are equal to each other V_(c1)={overscore(V_(c1))} and V_(c2)={overscore (V_(c2))}. To affect the imbalance ofthe impedances, the voltages are tuned away from each other, in oppositedirections. The biasing conditions and required biasing range can bedetermined based on PIN diodes and varactor diodes characteristics, aswell as the impedance level and offset range required for the variableimpedances. If preferred, differential control voltages can be replacedwith single-ended drives, however, a little more complex circuit withmultiple back-to-back diodes may be required in that case.

Those of skill in the art will recognize that the embodiments of theinvention disclosed herein are for purposes of illustration only, andthe claims should not be limited by such exemplary embodiments. Forexample, the present invention has been illustrated within the contextof push-pull amplifiers, but can be applied to many other differentialsystems utilizing differential structure having complementary (out ofphase) signals, with all the benefits described above for push-pullstructure. It can be applied to wide variety of other nonlinear activeor passive differential devices' where even order distortion productsneed to be improved, such as switches, attenuators, clock and linedrivers, etc.

1. A differential circuit that reduces or eliminates even order harmonicdistortion comprising: a first active circuit element having an inputand an output; a second active circuit element having an input and anoutput; a first pair of impedances connected in series with respect toeach other and coupled with a first common node disposed therebetween,said first pair of impedances connected between respective outputs ofsaid first and second active circuit elements; a second pair ofimpedances connected in series with respect to each other and coupledwith a second common node disposed therebetween, said second pair ofimpedances connected between respective inputs of said first and secondactive circuit elements; a feedback connection connected between saidfirst common node and said second common node; a balun having first andsecond windings, the first winding of said balun being connected to saidoutput of one of said first and second active circuit elements otherthan through said first pair of impedances, and the second winding ofsaid balun being connected to said output of another of said first andsecond active circuit elements other than through said first pair ofimpedances; and whereby when respective signals are applied to saidinputs of said first and second active circuit elements, said input andoutput of said second active circuit element are respectivelysubstantially out of phase with respect to said input and output of saidfirst active circuit element.
 2. The differential circuit as claimed inclaim 1, wherein a phase shift around an interconnected first loopdefined by said first active circuit element, corresponding ones of saidfirst and second impedances, and said feedback connection substantiallyequals 180?; and a phase shift around an interconnected second loopdefined by said second active circuit element, corresponding ones ofsaid first and second impedances, and said feedback connectionsubstantially equals 180?.
 3. The differential circuit as claimed inclaim 1 wherein said first pair of impedances are passive.
 4. Thedifferential circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein said second pair ofimpedances are passive.
 5. The differential circuit as claimed in claim1 wherein each impedance of one of said first and second pairs ofimpedances comprises a parallel combination of resistive and capacitive(R-C) components.
 6. The differential circuit as claimed in claim 1wherein said feedback connection is passive.
 7. The differential circuitas claimed in claim 1 wherein said feedback connection comprises a thirdactive circuit element having an input and output, said input of saidthird active circuit element being connected to said first common node,and said output of said third active circuit element being connected tosaid second common node.
 8. The differential circuit as claimed in claim1 wherein said first winding of said balun is connected between anon-grounded output signal terminal and said output of said one of saidfirst and second active circuit elements, and the second winding of saidbalun is connected between a grounded connection and said output of saidanother of said first and second active circuit elements.
 9. Thedifferential circuit as claimed in claim 1 further comprising anotherbalun having first and second windings connected to respective inputs ofsaid first and second active circuit elements.
 10. The differentialcircuit as claimed in claim 9 wherein said first winding of said anotherbalun is connected between an input signal source and said input of oneof said first and second active circuit elements other than through saidsecond pair of impedances, and said second winding of said another balunis connected between a grounded connection and said input of another ofsaid first and second active circuit elements other than through saidsecond pair of impedances.
 11. The differential circuit as claimed inclaim 9 wherein said balun and said another balun are connecteddiagonally symmetrically such that said first winding of said balun isconnected between a non-grounded output signal terminal and said outputof said one of said first and second active circuit elements and saidfirst winding of said another balun is connected between a non-groundedinput signal source and said input of said another of said first andsecond active circuit elements.
 12. A push-pull amplifier systemcomprising the differential circuit as claimed in claim
 1. 13. Afrequency up-converter system comprising the differential circuit asclaimed in claim
 1. 14. A differential circuit that reduces oreliminates even order harmonic distortion comprising: a first activecircuit element having an input and an output; a second active circuitelement having an input and an output; a first pair of impedancesconnected in series with respect to each other and coupled with a firstcommon node disposed therebetween, said first pair of impedancesconnected between respective outputs of said first and second activecircuit elements; a second pair of impedances connected in series withrespect to each other and coupled with a second common node disposedtherebetween, said second pair of impedances connected betweenrespective inputs of said first and second active circuit elements; afeedback connection connected between said first common node and saidsecond common node; wherein a selected pair of said first pair ofimpedances and said second pair of impedances comprises anelectronically controlled circuit for varying a degree of imbalancebetween respective impedances of said selected pair of impedances; andwhereby when respective signals are applied to said inputs of said firstand second active circuit elements, said input and output of said secondactive circuit element are respectively substantially out of phase withrespect to said input and output of said first active circuit element.15. The differential circuit as claimed in claim 14, wherein saidelectronically controlled circuit further comprises PIN diodes andvaractor diodes connected in a back-to-back arrangement with a commonground return.
 16. A differential circuit that reduces or eliminateseven order harmonic distortion comprising: a first active circuitelement having an input and an output; a second active circuit elementhaving an input and an output; a first pair of impedances connected inseries with respect to each other and coupled with a first common nodedisposed therebetween, said first pair of impedances connected betweenrespective outputs of said first and second active circuit elements; asecond pair of impedances connected in series with respect to each otherand coupled with a second common node disposed therebetween, a first endof said series connected second pair of impedances and an output of oneof said first and second active circuit elements being connected torespective inputs of a first combiner or directional coupler, and asecond end of said series connected second pair of impedances and anoutput of another of said second active circuit elements being connectedto respective inputs of a second combiner or directional coupler; and afeed-forward connection connected between said first common node andsaid second common node; and whereby when respective signals are appliedto said inputs of said first and second active circuit elements,corresponding outputs of said first and second active circuit elementsare substantially out of phase with respect to each other.
 17. Thedifferential circuit as claimed in claim 16 wherein said first pair ofimpedances are passive.
 18. The differential circuit as claimed in claim16 wherein said second pair of impedances are passive.
 19. Thedifferential circuit as claimed in claim 16 wherein said first andsecond combiners are direct connections.
 20. The differential circuit asclaimed in claim 16 wherein each impedance of one of said first andsecond pairs of impedances comprises a parallel combination of resistiveand capacitive (R-C) components.
 21. The differential circuit as claimedin claim 16 wherein said feed-forward connection is passive.
 22. Thedifferential circuit as claimed in claim 16 wherein said feed-forwardconnection comprises a third active circuit element having an input andoutput, said input of said third active circuit element being connectedto said first common node, and said output of said third active circuitelement being connected to said second common node.
 23. The differentialcircuit as claimed in claim 16 further comprising a balun having firstand second windings connected to respective outputs of said first andsecond combiners or directional couplers.
 24. The differential circuitas claimed in claim 23 wherein said first winding of said balun isconnected between an output signal terminal and said output of one ofsaid first and second combiners or directional couplers, and said secondwinding of said balun is connected between a grounded connection andsaid output of another of said first and second combiners or directionalcouplers.
 25. The differential circuit as claimed in claim 16 furthercomprising a balun having first and second windings connected torespective inputs of said first and second active circuit elements. 26.The differential circuit as claimed in claim 25 wherein said firstwinding of said balun is connected between an input signal source andsaid input of one of said first and second active circuit elements, andsaid second winding of said balun is connected between a groundedconnection and said input of another of said first and second activecircuit elements.
 27. The differential circuit as claimed in claim 16further comprising first and second baluns each having a pair ofwindings and connected diagonally symmetrically such that one of saidpair of windings of said first balun is connected between anon-grounded, input signal source and said input of one of said firstand second active circuit-elements, and one of said pair of windings ofsaid second balun is connected between a non-grounded output signalterminal and said output of said combiner or directional coupler thathas one of its input connected to said output of another of said firstand second active circuit elements.
 28. A push-pull amplifier systemcomprising the differential circuit as claimed in claim
 16. 29. Afrequency up-converter system comprising the differential circuit asclaimed in claim 16.